Do we have to have super-heavy armor?

[Sparrow]

Advanced tanks for the Brits would have been

Centurion - Everyone should know this tank as it had a long life.
Black Prince - 17 lber armed Churchill
A33 Tortoise - 78 tons, 32 lber gun, spg/assault gun not proper tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_heavy_assault_tank

 

[Khevenhuller]

Black Prince was a total failure and (thankfully) Tortoise never got past the exprimental stage. I am surprised you have not mentioned TOG1 and TOG2...

Centurion was Britain's first modern MBT, and did fairly well in Israeli hands...

K

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Ehh? MBTs are a direct outgrowth of the heavy tank and tank lines. And should be put into either of those. I don't know how you reached your conclusion.

Being MBT actualy means being allarounder ,standardised tank design of one army--exactly.
In game this will mean units capable to form main armoured divisions as well as act as a suplement as armoured brigade to various other divisions.
Concept of Main battle tank is direct descendant of tanks like T 34, Shermann,and PzKw IV.

Actaly first historical MBT is T 34.

Though today MB tanks being massive around 60 tonns,they are desecedants of medium,universal tanks of ww2.
They are 60 tonns(T 80 45 tonn) becouse thats how much armour is required to have resonable survival in moderm battlefield,just like 25-30 tonns was required in ww2.

Light tank branch,as well as haevy tank branch were all but extinct .

Not to mentuon superhaevy branch.

 

[Alexander Seil]

No one's disputing that Churchill didn't have "all around" capabilities. But Tiger certainly did. Nor are modern tanks necessarily standardized - Russia and Soviet Union, in particular, fielded and still field many generations of tanks simultaneously. Standardization is not an inherent property of an MBT, it's a consequence of the industrial capacity of the country fielding them.

EDIT: And might I add, the consequence of not having to develop the tanks under pressure, which allows a country to settle on a single model for long periods of time. It's much easier to standardize when you have the luxury of not having your army tied up in theaters across the globe.

EDIT2: Tigers being assembled one by one has to do with the state of the German industry, not with the impossibility of developing a production line for it.

In any case, my whole argument revolved around T-34 and Tiger being basically in the same category as far as their function is concerned (neither is specialized). And, in any case, we're deep in OT by now, so I suggest we start talking about super-heavy armor before this thread gets axed by the Ever Watchful One.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

No one's disputing that Churchill didn't have "all around" capabilities. But Tiger certainly did. Nor are modern tanks necessarily standardized - Russia and Soviet Union, in particular, fielded and still field many generations of tanks simultaneously. Standardization is not an inherent property of an MBT, it's a consequence of the industrial capacity of the country fielding them.

isnt it?

You are using as example Russinas who introduced first MBT- T 34.
Standardisation made T 34 so succesful.You could find spare parts for T 34 everywhere-all were the same,90 % of Russian tanks in 1943 were T -34.

USSR- T 72,version T 80, and T 90(basicaly same design)
USA -Abrams
GB-Challenger
France-Leclerc
................................

All those machines are standardised weapons for each army,built on massive scale.

Tigers were assembled like locomotives--meaning one by one,not on production line.

 

[Ostheim]

isnt it?

You are using as example Russinas who introduced first MBT- T 34.
Standardisation made T 34 so succesful.You could find spare parts for T 34 everywhere-all were the same,90 % of Russian tanks in 1943 were T -34.

USSR- T 72,version T 80, and T 90(basicaly same design)
USA -Abrams
GB-Challenger
France-Leclerc
................................

All those machines are standardised weapons for each army,built on massive scale.

Tigers were assembled like locomotives--meaning one by one,not on production line.

Most modern MBTs are assembled at least partly by engineers not assembly lines. It has to do with the complexity of the technology vs. the capabilities of the industry or entities building them. It would be impractical to try and automate too much of the process. How a tank is manufactured is not so much about its role but simply getting the job done in a cost effective and efficient way.

 

[Wraith11B]

[snip] Light tank branch [snip] were all but extinct [snip]

Erm, no. For examples I cite:

Light Tanks:
M2/3 Bradley Inf/Cav Fighting Vehicles (US Army)
LAV-25/AT/C2/etc (USMC)
Strykers/LAV GenIIIs (US Army)
BTRs/BMPs (USSR/Russia)
PUMA (GER)
WARRIOR (UK)

Heavy Tanks:
M109A1 Paladin (even though its SP-ART, its damn heavy)

 

[Freightshaker]

A Maus was 188 tons, that is more then 3 times as heavy as M1 Abrams and 3,5 times as heavy as a Leopard II

It's weight created the problem that it could not cross most bridges then in existence. In order to cross a river, it had to submerge and cross on the river bed using an external electric generator for propulsion power. Not something you want to accomplish under fire...

 

[Khevenhuller]

If we are looking at pushing a scenario out to '64 then it is worth looking at 'merging' the heavy and medium tanks at some point.

For exampl:

JS2 is the basis for later Soviet Armour
Pershing the basis for the US
Comet for the UK

So neithr is really a 'dead end', mor you are looking at a merger of the two research streams.

The somtimes alluring 'big is beautiful argument' thankfully led nowhere

K

 

[Szun]

instead of 2 E100 Tiger-Maus i'd rather had sturmtigers, at least they had 6 of those...

...and the 360mm (anti submarine) mörser was far more effective...

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Bradley,armoured personal carrier?

Paladin self propelled haevy artillery system is haevy tanks?


Arguments for light and haevy tanks?

I dont know what to say...you are brave.:wacko:

I sad light and haevy tank concept is extinct.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Bradley,armoured personal carrier?

Paladin self propelled haevy artillery system is haevy tanks?


Arguments for light and haevy tanks?

I dont know what to say...you are brave.:wacko:

I sad light and haevy tank concept is extinct.

Try this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV107_Scimitar

K

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Most modern MBTs are assembled at least partly by engineers not assembly lines. It has to do with the complexity of the technology vs. the capabilities of the industry or entities building them. It would be impractical to try and automate too much of the process. How a tank is manufactured is not so much about its role but simply getting the job done in a cost effective and efficient way.

The best tanks of ww 2 were those that could be manufactured quickly, like cars.Those were Sherman and T-34.German obsession with excellence prevented them to understand this untill it was to late.

I can admit that US Abrams is manufactured somewhat like Tiger,meaning assembled and polished one by one,meanining very slow production.
Such production rate in ww2 will be suicidal.
US can afford this now.
It will be interesting to see how will they replenish losses against some serious enemy.
German factories for instance can produce leopard 2 fiew times moe quickly than Abrams.Actualy new abrams cant be produced anymore becouse turbine suplyer doesnt exist anymore.

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Try this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV107_Scimitar

K

Please understand the difference between tank and any armoured wehicle.
Its like I explained once to my grandmother watching on CNN those police armoured wehicles on demonstrations on the streets in Bogota arent tanks.
Tank is a tank. This is reconsience wehicle.Ah, I know you mean it has a tracks?Well buldozers have them allso.But they arent tanks.

Anyway guys,to stop this valcer of ignorance here is the last light tank in the world ,american M551-Sheridan,showed duty in Vietnam,designed to be droped by plane. His thin armour(aluminnum!)showed inadequat for bazukas,and his low weight proved ansolvable problem to stabilise big gun.End of story about light tanks.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Please understand the difference between tank and any armoured wehicle.
Its like I explain to my grandmother once watching on CNN those police armoured wehicles on demonstrations on the streets in Bogota arent tanks.
Tank is a tank. This is reconsience wehicle.Ah, I know you mean it has a tracks?Well buldozers have them allso.But they arent tanks.

Anyway guys,to stop this valcer of ignorance here is the last light tank in the world ,american M551-Sheridan,showed duty in Vietnam,designed to be droped by plane. His thin armour(aluminnum!)showed inadequat for bazukas,and his low weight proved ansolwable problem to stabilise big gun.End of story about light tanks.

So the Mk VIB was simply a Recce vehicle? If you say so...odd that they were assigned to Cruiser Regiments.

Of course the British termed their heavier armoured cars as 'Tanks, wheeled' in 1940.

I would argue that the light tank in its Recce role is still very much alive...

K

 

[Chief Savage Ma]

When I played a world conquest with USSR, Iceland kept getting captured. I was running low on manpower with my 900 division army and 6 fronts. I also had no ability to ferry more troops out to Iceland so I kept the island on air supply. I used my massive IC to build 3 super heavy tank brigades for the Icelandic defense force. Only time I've ever used them.

 

[unmerged(94130)]

Arguments for light and haevy tanks?

I dont know what to say...you are brave.:wacko:

I sad light and haevy tank concept is extinct.

Today, light tanks are armoured fighting vehicles with their specialized versions.

Actual MBT are medium tanks of WW2 with the weight of heavy tanks...

In HoI, advanced light armoured tanks can be mixed with an armoured vehicles.
But heavy tanks have to be kept, medium tanks are to carry the most powerfull canon in a turret.

 

[Ciryandor]

Okay, just to play dumb, if we give insane defensive values to super heavy armor; ala mobile pillbox/bunker units, would that be viable?

 

[slygore]

On topic

I like having the SH tank brigade, it's a luxury item though. The only time I have ever used them was for static formations on the atlantic wall. Conceptually, I aggree with the previous poster that asked for specific arguments against it. If oyu break it down, the Maus is critisized b/c of slow speed, etc. HOWEVER the unit was basically a prototype first generation tank for all purposes. I mean the speed 12-14kph is comparable to the first generation British Mk I tank. If someone chose to invest the time and effort into a superheavy tank research they would become better. The idea of a superheavy tank was not so much that it was to be HEAVY as it was supposed to be better protected/greater firepower than any other tank. Unfournatley for the germans that meant a gazillion tons more armour.
If you look at it you could argue the Tiger is a failure as a heavy tank, in the same way, if the war ended in 42 the tiger would have been a failure, broke down too often and too slow and too heavy, but doctrine and improvments in design maintence etc. made it an impressive tank, BUT not b/c it was a revolutinary design, it just packed WAY more armor and firepower onto a tank than anyone else had done before. It didn't even have sloped armour!
In that light you can see the Maus as an attempt to recapture the magic of Tiger, bigger and badder than anything the allies or Soviets were fielding at the time and a huge intimidation factor.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

Keep them in.

I want to have an extra useless brigade I can cannibalize and put in something I want instead